Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

El v. Buck

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

December 15, 2014

CATHY BUCK, Defendant.


JOHN G. HEYBURN, II, Senior District Judge.

Plaintiff Yuchi El AKA Antonio L. Burgess filed the instant pro se 28 U.S.C. § 1983 action proceeding in forma pauperis. This matter is before the Court on the initial review of the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Upon initial review, for the reasons set forth herein, the Court will dismiss the action.


Plaintiff is a convicted inmate currently incarcerated at the Blackburn Correctional Complex. His complaint arises out of his previous incarceration at the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC). He sues Cathy Buck, whom he identifies as a Grievance Coordinator at LLCC, in her official capacity only.

Plaintiff states that on June 16, 2014, he requested a notary stamp on a document from Defendant Buck. He reports that when he handed her the document to be notarized, she started to read it and asked him what it was. He states, "I replyed the head line of my documents Moorish National Republic Federal Government, North West Amexem/Northwest Africa/North American/The North Gate, The True and Dejure Al Moroccans, Societas Republicae Ea Al Maurikanos, The Aboriginal/Indigenous National People of the Land.'" Defendant Buck asked where he was from, and he replied, "The Moroccon Empire.'" Plaintiff further states as follows:

She proceeded to read my property. I ask her what she was doing, that's between my legal team and I, she kept reading. I asked her once more "why are you reading all of my documents." She replyed to make sure your not threating anyone" I told her it's just codes to law "USC codes, UCC codes, International law codes and what they mean, my status codes." She asked what was AA22141, I told her my certificate Registration number on file. I was a registered sovereign protected by law... she states, "what do you mean kidnapped assult on a forein official? Step out and close the door. I stand outside her door, she get's on the phone and calls someone, and starts to discuss what she read in my documents.... after 5 minutes or so, she opens the door and tells me to come in, giving back a id card with my debtor title on it. She "Cathy Buck" states "I know you are a United States citizen, I know law and I'm not comfortable signing it. I ask her "so your not notarizing my documents cause your not comfortable with what?" Stuff you put in them pages, I know law" I told her I'll hold her to it, and I'm not a United States citizen, since she knew law" I'm not a Negro, Black, colored African American, No 13, 14, 15 amendment corporation, I'm a flesh and blood human being. Jus Sanguihis, since she knew law. I'd be filling a grievance about Discrimination. She wrote her name down and gave it to me.

Plaintiff reports that he explained the issue to two non-Defendant corrections officers and that both officers told him to file a grievance and that Defendant Buck could not "do anything with the grievance because it had to do with her." He states that he then wrote a grievance stating "whom I am, ' where I am from, Bill of Rights codes to prove to Ms. Buck I could never be a United States citizen by law, definitions of my legal stands, and that she had to represent D.AR. trying to discriminate against me, since she knows law." He further states the following:

I asked for these facts to be placed on paper, so I can force my issue outside of this place, so the governor and States Attorney could see what's going on behind these walls, "my action requests." She Ms. Buck had highlighted several issues in my grievance, had her grievance aid tell me "Lewis Clark" to take them out, and she would let it go through. I asked how is she dealing with my grievance, when it's about her.

Plaintiff also states that he asked several people to give him a copy but no one would give him a copy. He states that Defendant "wasn't suppost to be able to deal with my grievance and when she see's the nature of my Action Requested, she dictated the outcome of it. She discrimanated against me, through her position and my status."

As relief, Plaintiff seeks $5, 800, 000 in punitive damages.


When a prisoner initiates a civil action seeking redress from a governmental entity, officer, or employee, the trial court must review the complaint and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of it, if the court determines that the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See §§ 1915A(b)(1), (2); McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). When determining whether a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court must construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept all of the factual allegations as true. Prater v. City of Burnside, Ky., 289 F.3d 417, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). In order to survive dismissal for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "[A] district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take all well-pleaded factual allegations as true." Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478, 488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted)). "But the district court need not accept a bare assertion of legal conclusions.'" Tackett, 561 F.3d at 488 (quoting Columbia Natural Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995)).


Official-capacity claims

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.